Recent Posts

Talk to any serious follower of Military matters — not the
hard core ideologues that see all military as bad — and the
looming budget cuts make about zilch for sense.

If you remember in 2007 we were desperate to grow the Army
and Marine Corps, because the Active, and even Guard and Reserve
forces couldn't keep up with the
tempo of war, and the demands placed upon them. Whole units
were formed and deployed in record time.

There was a lot of talk about how some of the recruits were under
trained, or that the stress on the seasoned troops was too much,
cripples with P3 (also known as Dead Man) profiles were
deploying. Really its hard to argue that both ground combat
services weren't scraping the bottom of the barrel. I could talk
about Stop-Loss/Stop-Move,
or the numerous waivers granted to recruits, but that would be
simply beating a dead horse.

So now we're getting ready to cut the ground combat
services by a staggering amount. Keep in mind we're still
at war, and this is to say nothing of the Navy and Air Force,
which have already taken massive hits to support the Army and
Marine Corps. Why are we giving so many active duty troops
the pink slip? The demand isn't going to go away.
Chances are if its not Syria, North Korea, Iran, Somalia, or God
forbid, Europe (again), there will be some conflict that will
arise sometime in the near future that the US will get involved
in. In such an unstable world, its almost a
certainty. So why cut the active force?

Well it goes back to a way of thinking that is sadly seeing
too much play in defense politics. Soldiers of the Active
Army are expensive, they do nothing but sit in their barracks
until called upon right? Well why have this vast Army (or
any other service), we can [insert corner to cut here] and save
[insert dollar figure here]. This idea really started with
the George H. W. Bush's "peace dividend". In the process of
closing certain bases and squeezing troops into others, it was
seen that some military jobs (known as MOS, or military
occupational specialties) were not essential to a peacetime
Army.

So some MOS' were combined or roles were reduced, and
because we weren't preparing to fight the Soviets anymore there
was no real complaining there. Thing is, Clinton took it
one step farther, by drawing down the force by massive levels.
Seven whole Army divisions were cut from the rolls, and to offset
the loss of troops, certain nonessential jobs the
Army used to do for
itself were taken up by independent contractors.

You wouldn't need an
Active Duty Army of 700,000 if you had contractors taking care of
a majority of the Service/Support roles.
It seemed to save money, that is
until the Army had to go to war again.

One cannot argue that the contractors in Iraq were a
hassle from a lot of perspectives. I'm not even going to talk
about the KBR or Blackwater guys, I'm sure there's
more than enough people that will froth and foam at the mouth
about the things they did. The point is they would be
paid double or three times as much as a Soldier of Marine
to do the same job, making the overall war, very very
expensive, more so than it should have been. From a political
standpoint the politicians won because they didn't have to send
500,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the truth is in
the numbers, and the amount of money spent and the number of
contractors there don't lie.

But what about now? We can't give any more jobs to
contractors. If we did we really would have to privatize our
entire military. I'm not sure how comfortable people would
be with a private company running the US Department of Defense.
So if demand is not going away and we can't contract anymore jobs
who's going to take up the slack when the Active Duty troops go
away? Well the Guard and Reserve are just sitting there
aren't they? Again for a lot of good reasons this is a very
bad idea, that sadly the bean counters will overlook.

Remember in 2005 when 60% of the forces in Iraq were Guard
and Reserve? The Active Duty had pretty much sent every single
unit to Iraq or Afghanistan and most needed time off. So
the Guard and Reserve took up a lot of the
slack. Well a bit of an interesting thing happened
before they went. Years of Peacetime had left the Guard
with many troops that weren't really fit to
fight: 50 year old Specialists, Sergeants First
Class that were on the last rotation of Vietnam, the list goes
on. A lot of these people should have retired or been
quietly chaptered out, but the simple fact is that Reserves and
Guard get their funding based on who actually shows up at drill,
so every swinging dick was essential, and if they didn't show up
in reality, they did on paper.

It didn't help matters that pre-9/11 most of the "training"
amounted to weekend BBQs and occasional disaster relief training,
nor did it help that people who were on the IRR were reported as
Active Guardsmen, even though they never showed up to drill. When
the call ups started in 2004, it became painfully clear that many
units just weren't ready for combat.

Now fast forward to now. The Iraq theater of operations is
essentially over, and Afghanistan, despite protests of the
commanders on the ground soon will be as well. We have
enough figures to draw some interesting, and disturbing
conclusions. When compared with the Active forces, Soldier for
Soldier, the Guard would take up to 60% more casualties. In
addition, while many units did their job well, it is telling that
you tended not to see reservists in major battles or offensives
if they weren't in a supporting role. It made it clear that
while the Joint Chiefs of Staff might trust the Guard and Reserve
to fill the gaps in the Active force, they do not trust them to
hold the line so to speak.

Another little wrinkle was made painfully obvious when
Katrina hit New Orleans. One of the major complaints was
how long it took the Military to deploy to help rescue and relief
efforts. But the Posse
Comitatus Act prevented just that from happening with out a
Federal state of emergency being declared. In one of the
most painful ironies of the whole lamentable incident, a majority
of the Louisiana National Guard, who would have responded to the
disaster, were at the time deployed to Iraq. When the
82nd
Airborne of all units was called into help with the policing
of American soil, things have truly gotten out of hand. You
actually had an instance where the Active Duty was
filling the Guard role and the Guard was filling the Active Duty
role.

These defense cuts tend to make far more sense if one thinks like
a bean counter. There's this force that's trained, sure they're
part time, but we can have them fall in on the equipment that is
already there, and we'll only call on them only when
needed. This idea completely discounts every bit of
military wisdom regarding the Guard and Reserve, and their
original intention when created. Indeed as part of the employment of these
soldiers they are locked down and trained relentlessly for 6
months, before they are considered certified to deploy to
combat. This means the next time we're stuck between Iraq
and a hard place, the Active force will have to hold the line for
6 months before they can reasonably expect any kind of
relief. But what if a majority of the Active troops are
deployed and "something comes up" as it so often does? We
cant call a time out while we wait for the Guard to train up for
combat.

Lastly this mindset completely negates the very real impact
on these Guardsmen. When Active Duty troops deploy, it is hard on
everyone, but there is a support
system there for them to use. The spouse might choose to go
back to live with his/her parents, as often happens with
newlyweds, but if they choose to stay, there are systems on post
to help them with everything, from getting groceries, to child
care. If the systems aren't working, Rear
D [Detachment] will solve the problems they're facing.
(Married
To The Army explains: There is always a detachment of
soldiers from a deployed unit that stays behind to keep the unit
running at the duty station, as well as provide a link between
the unit and the FRG Family
Readiness Group).

The Guardsmen will have that support only if their family lives
close to their training area, and if they're lucky enough to have
a strong FRG, but lets face it, most of the spouses, girlfriends.
boyfriends, and children are simply not used to living the Army
life. Also keep in mind whereas the Active Duty troops may be
gone up to and perhaps beyond a year, the National Guard and Army
Reserve troops will have to be trained for 6
months before their deployment, making it up
to, and sometimes beyond 18 months their away from their
families. This is to say nothing of the jobs left behind,
slots that the employer has to hold open, even
in this economy.

When one looks at all these facts, and views it in context
we can absolutely say that we can save [insert figure here]
dollars, by cutting the active force and relying on the Guard and
Reserve more. We can say that because from a purely Dollars and
Cents perspective, it's true. Sadly when the time comes and
we need our Army to preform brilliantly like it *almost* always
does, the cost will be much more evident, and painful to bear.
We should beware of the idea that a penny saved is a
penny earned when talking about war. When it comes to
the Military, General George S. Patton Jr said it best "A pint of
Sweat will save a gallon of Blood". I can only wonder, and cringe
at the cost in blood these cuts will have down the
road.